tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX February 22, 2015 9:00am-10:01am EST
chris wallace. president obama hoists a summit on violent extremism but refused to use terms. >> you cannot defeat an enemy if you refuse to acknowledge what it is. >> we will discuss a plan to combat isis and the standoff. with homeland security secretary jay johnson. the u.s. outlines a major military offensive in iraq. are we tipping our hand? >> it is mystifying that the u.s. military command would release the who what and when. >> we will talk strategy with
retired four star general jack keen. then the nation's governors including some top white house hopefuls gather in washington. we will talk with indiana governor mike pence who has been mentioned as a potential candidate. and are attacks on president obama's patriotism going too far? >> i hear him criticize america much more. >> our sunday group weighs in all right now on "fox news sunday." president obama's terror strategy under fire as isis militants grow more bold on attacks. with new threats the feud over the president's executive action
on immigration is holding up a bill in congress that would keep the department of homeland security funded past next friday. joining us to discuss is secretary jay johnson. let's talk about terrorism, isis, isil and the president's approach to this. he has been criticized from a number of different fronts for not calling this a battle against islamic extremism. why won't he acknowledge we are fighting islamic extremism. >> from my perspective whether referred to as islamic extremism or violent extremism isil is a terrorist organization that represents a serious potential threat to our homeland which has to be addressed through a whole approach. law enforcement here in this country, our countering extremism. we had a summit about that this week. so it is a dangerous terrorist organization that has to be dealt with from my perspective.
let me say this. in our engagements around the country, i do a lot of these myself in muslim communities, islamic cultural centers, the thing i hear from leaders in the muslim community in this country is isil who is attempting to hijack my religion. our religion is about peace and brotherhood. isil is attempting to hijack that from us. they resent that. most victims of isil are muslim. it seems to me to refer to isil as occupying any part of the islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on. i think that to call them some form of islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves.
>> so this then is not an exercise in being politically correct but an exercise in not giving them legitimacy that they seek? >> that is what i'm hearing from the muslim community in this country. more importantly isil is a dangerous terrorist organization that needs to be dealt with. they have 30,000 fighters on the ground. they have capability to reach into our homeland to recruit and inspire independent actors here potentially. and so we have to deal with this in a whole of government approach. i'm more concerned about that frankly than i am what two words we use to refer to them. >> there are members of your own party who believe that the president is missing a big part of the picture here by not identifying isis as islamic extremist. it was said the other day about strategy. >> unless you accurately
identify who your enemy is then you can't come up with an effective strategy, a winning strategy to defeat that enemy. >> you might not call them islamic extremists because you don't want to give the dignity of being part of the islamic faith but if you don't identify them as a radical religious ideology can you adequately address the threat and develop a winning strategy. >> isil is a terrorist organization. >> they want to become a state. >> they want to become an islamic state. and to call them islamic, to call them any form of islamic gives them too much dignity in my view and the view of a lot of muslims around the world. >> the president has on aoccasion seemed to draw a moral equivalence to what christians did 1,000 years ago when they were fighting armys. what is the relevance of that
comparison? >> from my homeland security perspective we have to deal with this terrorist organization which is the most prominent on the world stage right now which is one of the reasons why the department of homeland security needs a budget by the end of the week. i hope you ask me about that. it is a terrorist organization that is very dangerous. it is on the march. it's on the move and very effective in its use of the internet for recruitment purposes. to say that they are in any form islamic seeds to them a playing field. >> at the summit at the white house there was a lot of talk about social media a lot of talk about community sensitivity. state department spokes woman was criticized for saying we can't kill our way out of the war. we have to go after the root causes lack of opportunity and jobs among them.
here is what the navy s.e.a.l. who shot osama bin laden had to say about that. >> they get paid to cut off heads and i don't think a change in career path is going to stop them. >> this is a terrorist organization that wants to become a state. how would jobs and community outreach possibly deter them from doing what they want to do? maybe you might stop a few people from the united states from joining them. >> we need to respond to this terrorist organization military militariallymilitary militarily. because of the foreign fighter phenomenon, the number of foreign fighters they have in their force and because of their use of the internet, use of social media to recruit and to recruit for specific terrorist attacks, we need to be involved in the relevant communities in this country to thwart their
recruitment efforts and help build the counter narrative to the one being put out by isil right now. i view that as critically important given the phase to which we have involved. it does involve a whole of government approach which does involve engagement in the community, building trust so that the communities through which there is the capacity to deter those who want to go to these groups have a level of trust with state local and federal law enforcement and we support their efforts to build a counter narrative. i think that is critical. >> let's talk about your budget and immigration. the justice department says it is going to appeal on immigration executive action. texas governor says the fifth circuit court of appeals should uphold the ruling because in cases like this any court of appeals tends to preserve the status quo and status quo was
not having this immigration executive action in place. what do you say? >> we will appeal. this is what appellate courts are for. we will seek a stay. looking at it from my common sense perspective the judge in his opinion -- and i read all 123 pages of it, said he has no quarrel with the notion that we are allowed to prioritize how we use our resources to deport people in this country. we are prioritizing on convicted criminals, recent arrivals apprehended at the border. there is a large segment of undocumented population in this country who have been here for years and are not going to be deported in any administration democratic or republican. that is the reality. hold on. from my homeland security law enforcement perspective it is better to find ways to encourage that group of people to come forward, come out of the
shadows, get on the books, be accountable, receive a work authorization and pay taxes. what the judge's opinion does is it says you can prioritize and i don't quaral with you leaving these people alone because they are not priorities they are not criminals. effectively i can't bring them out of the shadows. from the law enforcement perspective, from the perspective of the sheriff chief commissioner in cities and counties around the country that is not a good thing. so we are going to appeal and seek a stay of this and welcome the debate in congress about immigration reform. unfortunately, we haven't been able to have it. >> all of this is tied to your budget which runs out on february 27. why are democrats blocking debate? >> democrats are not blocking debate. what is happening is that some in congress -- >> filibuster -- >> hold on. some in congress want to tie
defunding our executive actions to my entire homeland security budget. >> why can't democrats introduce an amendment to strip that part from the bill and undertake debate in senate? >> we should have the debate about immigration reform but should not tie that to the funding for the third largest department in our government which includes efforts to do all of the things we have been talking about on the counter terrorism front, coast guard, fema in the midst of a harsh winter. that funding for border patrol agents, customs agents, cyber security efforts all runs out at the end of this week. so what i have been continually saying to congress, to the public and to the press is that we need a fully funded department of homeland security. we need a clean appropriations bill for our department. >> a lot of people understand the importance of that. is the president partly at fault
here because it was his executive action rather than letting congress handle this he went ahead and passed this executive action. why not pull that off the table? >> the president has said repeatedly including on the way we announced our executive actions that he would like to have the immigration debate with congress. unfortunately, that has not happened. we have waited for years, literally, for congress to get to the business of immigration reform. the senate passed a good bill. the house has not. now what is going on in congress is there are some who want to defund our executive action and do it in a way that holds up the entire budget of homeland security for this nation. that is unacceptable from a public safety homeland security view. i'm talking to my friends on the hill democrat and republican about importance of let's get on with funding department of homeland security. >> this is an important story we will continue to watch in the
days to come. as isis expands reach in middle east we want to drill down into the situation on the ground and strategy. joining us now is fox news military analyst jack keen. we planned to speak with general michael hayden but he was unable to join us because he could not fly into washington due to the snow yesterday. you heard what the secretary had to say about the reason the administration is not labelling isis as radical extremism. >> i think we should call it for what it is. i appreciation secretary johnson's service and has tremendous reputation. here is the trap i think they have fallen into. first of all, isis itself, it draws its central belief system
from the q'uran. it is a literal interpretation of it. therefore slavery, crucifixion and beheadings are part of their portfolio. killing nonbelievers who are muslims are part of their portfolio. inside islam you have these radicals and you have modern interpretation and traditional interpretation. they are at war with each other. we should not permit the moderate and traditional muslim leaders. clerics say this is not islamic when it is. we should not fall into the trap of not defining it and explaining this theology. we should push them to challenge this theology that isis has adopted. they must challenge it. >> what military advantage is derived from labelling them as islamic extremism? >> here is the issue. once you label it -- if they
didn't label it but defined it properly and defined the ideology and had a comprehensive strategy to deal with it that really is the issue. you have to define it and explain the ideology and then develop a strategy to defeat it. we do not have a comprehensive strategy to defeat it. >> we learned part of the strategy when the pentagon revealed plans for mosul. maybe surrounding west and east and then blocking from the north. was it a good idea to telegraph those plans? >> i don't know what that's about. certainly isis knows that mosul is the center piece of any counter offensive. we have been knocking off lines of communications and isolating mosul for weeks. they know we would like to do
that before or after. so timing is something they can figure out themselves. what mystifies me is what you mentioned. we gave disposition and composition of the force which is pretty unusual. we told them the size of the assault force and the blocking force, how many folks we got on reserve. that is far too much information for the enemy to have. >> gave them tactical information as well. do you think this is tied into the debate into the president's request for authorization for use of military force? we want to have congressional backing for this. >> it may have something to do with the fact that we really have a plan to do something about isis. and we are going to do something about it and we are committed to it. >> they certainly have been criticized for not having a plan. >> that criticism. >> the president has been criticized for focusing on
issues that are probably part of the fight, social media. he did run into particular criticism for saying we need to address the legitimate grievances for people who join organizations like isis. let's listen to what he said at the summit. >> when people are oppressed and human rights are denied particularly along secretary tarian lines or ethnic lines it feeds violent extremism. >> this is a band of thugs operating under a medieval interpretation of islam. do they have legitimate grievances here that need to be addressed? >> dealing with the larger issue i agree with some of what the president is saying there.
there is political reform in the region is necessary social justice and economic repression are all major issues out there. and the long term strategy they should be addressed. but the near term strategy is isis and over iraq and syria and the desire to do the same over other countries. that requires an overwhelming military response to deal with them. that means we must kill them, capture them, stop them and defeat them. >> the way we see isis starting to spread, boko haram apparently beginning to align with isis. dick cheney warned of the coming caliphate from west africa to the endsubcontinent. >> radical islam is morphing into a global jihad. stretching all the way to southeast asia. that is the facts of it. that is why we need a global
response to this. we need to get the other nations of the world in. i would formalize and enter an alliance kind of what we dealt with communism with southeast treaty organization and get the people in the region to put their minds on how to deal with it and share technology and training. they do most of the heavy lifting. very much a part of that. near term with isis we have to get after it militarily. >> thanks for sharing your expertise with us this sunday morning. up next does president obama deserve the criticism he is getting for not naming radical islam as the enemy. what would you like to ask the panel? go to facebook or twitter and we may use your question on the air.
do you want to know how hard it can be to breathe with copd? it can feel like this. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my airways for a full 24 hours. spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva respimat does not replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva respimat. discuss all medicines you take even eye drops. if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells
you get hives, vision changes or eye pain or problems passing urine stop taking spiriva respimat and call your doctor right away. side effects include sore throat cough, dry mouth and sinus infection. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. to learn about spiriva respimat slow-moving mist ask your doctor or visit spirivarespimat.com you can't predict the market. but at t. rowe price we've helped guide our clients through good times and bad. our experienced investment professionals are one reason over 85% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper averages. so in a variety of markets we can help you feel confident. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence.
we have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit including economic grievances. poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist. >> president obama making the case that poverty and lack of education are some of the root causes of terrorism. it is time for part one of our sunday group. syndicated columnist george
will, kimberly strassal from the "wall street journal." let's get to what the president said about jobs and lack of opportunity fuelling terrorism. big topic of conversation will be the president's request for authorization of military force against isis. do you believe that the president is unduly tying his hands here with some of the provisions he has laid down? >> the way this is rolled says so much. you look back at other previous authorizations of force, the two that president bush sent to congress. the way that happened is president had a strategy. he knew exactly what he wanted congress to authorize. he said here is what i need from you to get her done. this president has sent a document to congress that is like here is my first stop. why don't you take a look at it, let me know, get back to me.
the problem is this is political cover. he wants the congress to basically agree to codify his ambivalence about fighting isis. that is why the authorization of force has so many problems. >> do you agree he is looking to codify? >> it is not clear what needs to be done in fighting isis. i don't think it is an open and shut case. as much as republicans have been critical of obama haven't given a lot of great ideas other than constantly attacking. so i think you go back to bush and he did a great authorization. the war didn't go very well. i think obama is having a more -- he hasn't laid out a clear strategy and needs to do that. we have to acknowledge that this is a difficult fight and acting to have the authorization. it is wide and will give latitude to do what he needs to do. >> if the president says i want this authorization for the use
of force but only for three years and not using ground forces in engagement thought he needs to allow himself a little more latitude here. >> what is actually banned when you ban enduring offensive ground operations is unclear. there is a lot of wiggle room in that. those who say it is too restrictive say it is too reive. >> we do this all the time with laws that are sunseted. those who say it is too permissive that worries me and authorizes the use of force against associated forces which can be from boko haram to half a dozen we have never heard of. this is a president who unlike any previous presidents, all the presidents have said we think it's unconstitutional but we will abide by reporting requirements. this president gemmed up a legal opinion that said what we did
within eight months of bombing in libya did not constitute hostilities. there is deep and earned skepticism about his intention to abide by any legal restraint. >> you mentioned boko haram. there is indication that boko haram may be adopting isis tactics. having this contingent provision to go after associated groups. >> he is not going to repeal 2001 authorization that george bush mentioned. he is saying we have no ground forces. he still can do all of those things without action to congress because the 2001 resolution. it is more of a political statement but does under score that this is a target. what is a target? that is the question congress is trying to answer. >> let's get to the idea of the president in the white house summit addressing root causes.
marie harp was criticized last week for saying something. we will play that and follow up with a response from donald rumsfield. >> we cannot win this war by killing them. we need in the longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs. >> it's a little insulting to people who are jobless or poor to suggest that that is the cause of terrorism. the overwhelming majority of the people who are poor or jobless are not terrorists. they don't strap bombs on their children or women and send them into a shopping center to kill innocent men, women and children. >> is this about economic opportunity or about fighting a terrorist religious ideology. >> it is hard to have economic message in a war zone. they just want to get through the day without being beheaded
or burnt alive. you want function in society and we do know that having successful economies does reduce violence. it's a priority question here. you are going to have to go in and get rid of the terror threat first. >> what she is saying isn't untrue. the problem is that there is probably something else playing a much bigger role here. because every single person who is in the middle east isn't signing up for this. i do think there is an issue of them being more clear about identifying that. i understand why they are staying away from the islamic, calling it islamic because they need to bring in partners into this fight who are muslim. >> we are going to cope with the
radical ideology by bombarding them with tweets using 350 state department twitter accounts. there is an old axiom you cannot reason someone out of position they have not been reasoned into. and the idea that people who say we would rather behead people and crucify them and burn them alive and you use 140 characters to say that is not nice. the whole thing is surreal. >> this is not just a terrorist group. this is a terrorist group that wants to become a state. when saddam hussein invaded kuwait we did not have a jobs program. >> they want it back to be a state, as you say. what she said isn't different than what bob gates said in the past t. is at a moment when our debate is polarized. is the president being tough enough. >> we will bring you back later on in the show. the nation's governors are
in washington but the chatter is more about 2016 than winter meeting. we will ask indiana governor if he plans on being a contendant when we sit down with him coming up next. surprised? in fact, america is now the world's number one natural gas producer... and we could soon become number one in oil. because hydraulic fracturing technology is safely recovering lots more oil and natural gas. supporting millions of new jobs. billions in tax revenue... and a new century of american energy security. the new energy superpower? it's red, white and blue. log on to learn more. daughter: do you and mom still have money with that broker? dad: yeah, 20 something years now. thinking about what you want to do with your money? daughter: looking at options. what do you guys pay in fees? dad: i don't know exactly. daughter: if you're not happy do they have to pay you back? dad: it doesn't really work that way.
interest in serving the cause of global security, global peace and human freedom. >> a few gop leaders and likely 2016 candidates taking shots at president obama's foreign policy. the latest sign that the race for the white house is in full swing. our next guest is considered a potential dark horse presidential candidate but will he run. >> how can i ask you that question at least not off the top. the national governor's association meeting is taking place in washington. i know that the immigration bill that will be debated this week because there are only a few days to get it done before the department of homeland security runs out of money is a big topic of conversation. some governors calling for a clean bill. what do you say? >> look the executive action the president took late last year was clearly an unconstitutional end run around
the law making authority of the congress of the united states. the president has the authority under the constitution to determine how he will implement the law. he does not have the authority to determine whether he will implement the law. and now a federal district judge has ruled to put an injunction in place. my bottom line is that we need to protect the homeland. we also need to protect the constitution. and i think that the congress using the power of the purse is all together appropriate. and ought to be happening today is not calls for a clean bill or otherwise. the house has acted. the democrats in the senate should lift the filibuster and allow the bill to come to the floor and let the congress work its will and put a bill that funds the department of homeland security on the president's desk before friday. >> you were telling me earlier off camera why should taxpayers fund something that a texas judge says is not within the
bounds of the president to do? >> it is something i mentioned to some of my democratic governor colleagues yesterday. why does the administration need money for what the federal courts say they can't do? this is really the injunction that is in place. the white house is going to appeal it. this is going to be a while. indiana was very proud to join the suit that texas initiated. we were vindicated when the court found that states do have the kind of harm that justifies states having standing in this case. this is a matter that will go to the supreme court of the united states. obviously this is an important issue in the life of the nation. and it ought to be decided debated and resolved in the congress and not by the stroke of a president's pen. >> let's move on. a lot to get to in the remaining eight minutes. what is your take in the way the president is handling this situation with isis? >> i'm very concerned.
before i became governor of indiana i served on foreign affairs committee for a decade. i travelled to iraq a number of times. i have been to mosul and the word this morning about plans for an offensive operation to retake mosul are encouraging. i still think -- >> plans are out there though? >> encouraging that the goal is out there. i don't think we hear a robust strategy to really drive this terrorist army not only out of iraq but also out of existence. and there ought to be calls for military investments in spending. the debate over the authorization, the little bit on the show a few moments ago is going to be very important. i think this administration has yet to articulate the kind of vision and the kind of strategy that will not only give
confidence to the american people but give confidence to our allies around the world that we are serious about driving this isil army out of existence. >> you probably heard the rationale for the white house not labelling isil as islamic extremism. what are your thoughts about that? >> i think the american people are understandably frustrated with a president who lectures us on the crusades but is unwilling to call islamic extremism by name. part of leadership i truly believe is not only identifying the objective but in matters of war and state craft it is about identifying the enemy. and not just with regard to what is happening in syria and iraq today with isil but around the globe with islamic terrorist attacks in europe. it is clear that we are
confronting a growing threat around the world. i think it is extremely important for the president of the united states to articulate that clearly to marshall the resources, the energy of the united states of america and allies to confront that. >> your neighbor to the east told one of our colleagues mark my words at some point it will require boots on the ground from the world to be able to deal with the problem talking about nato forces and u.s. forces. do you agree? will u.s. ground troops have to be a part of this fight? >> they might have to be. the reality is what we ought to be doing, this commander in chief ought to be articulating a robust strategy for not only retaking the territory of iraq but also driving this isil army out of existence. but i'm a little old school on this. i think the civilian command of our military ought to articulate
the objective. you ought to listen to your commanders on the ground and at the pentagon to say how do we do that? how do we accomplish that and take their recommendations? >> i want to ask you about 2016. stipulating the legislative session runs until april 29. you are focused on the business of the state of indiana. do you want the job? >> i'm blessed every day to be governor of a state that works. >> i should have included that. >> we have a balanced budget. in my first year in office we passed the largest state tax cut in indiana history. we have invested in education and infrastructure and as a result our economy is growing. we have seen 100,000 private sector jobs in indiana the last two years. unemployment dropped to 5.8%. test scores are up, graduation rates are up. i just couldn't be prouder of
the people of indiana. i'm going to stay focused on the future of the people of indiana. >> those are all pretty good things to lay out there. i knew my preamable wasn't long enough. here is the problem. with jeb bush pushing the schedule as he is and governor walker following suit, waiting until may, is that too long before you would potentially make an announcement? could you catch up if you waited until may? >> i am just a small town guy from southern indiana with the privilege of serving in the congress for a dozen years and now a privilege of serving as governor for two years. i was raised on old fashioned values. and one of those ideas is what comes out of the old book that essentially says whoever is trust worthy in lesser things may be trusted in greater things. as we work on passing a balanced
budget amendment, increasing investment in education innovation, expanding charter schools in what is the largest educational voucher program in america that my focus needs to be on the state of indiana, the people of indiana and any decisions about my future. >> is there any consideration here of we wait until may it will be difficult to catch up? >> i like to say i'm an a to b, b to c, c to d guy. i was raised to say do what is in front of you do it well and then we'll consider whatever opportunities. >> people say you could be a good bridge between establishment republicans, tea party wing, social conservatives. can you bridge those groups? >> that would be for others to say. >> do you feel comfortable? >> i have been very fortunate to enjoy strong support. i was there at the first major tea party rally out on the
national mall just several years ago. i looked at those hundreds of thousands of people who had come to battle against run away spending in washington, d.c. and i said nancy pelosi said you all are astroturf. i said you look like the cavalry to me. i love what the tea party has done. i am proud of the business support that we have enjoyed. >> i want to ask you one more -- >> decisions on our future based on being called to serve. >> you know what rudy giuliani said that he believes the president doesn't love america. do you believe this president loves america? >> i don't think it helps to question the president's patriotism or motives. look rudy giuliani is a great american. he saw nearly 3,000 of his own
citizens die on 9/11. he is understandably frustrated with a president who as i said before is fully willing to lecture the people of this country about the crusades but unwilling to call islamic extremism for what it is. and i just truly believe that the focus of our country today needs to be on the task at hand, getting this economy moving again, restoring america's strong place in the world and i look forward to being a voice and to play some role in helping to advance that. >> you can say it is not helpful to question his patriotism. do you question his patriotism at all? >> i think it is not helpful to question motives or question patriotism. i truly do believe that where we ought to be focused -- the thing about being a governor john, is you have to focus on the task at hand every day. you have asked me a lot of
questions about the future. i like to say out here in washington, d.c. they are always asking who is next. as a governor i have to ask what is next and working on jobs and education reform and improving the quality of the lives of the people of our state. washington, d.c. needs to get back to focusing on the priorities of the american people. >> always great to sit down with you. good to see you again. enjoying our time together and good to see you here in washington. when we come back is questioning the president's patriotism going too far? and how did jeb bush do in his foreign policy debut. could foreign money create a headache for hillary clinton should she decide to run?
taken seriously and want to avoid problems of the past? now is the time for leaders to stop this kind of nonsense. enough. >> former new york city mayor rudy giuliani refusing to back down after questioning the president's patriotism while debbie wassermann schultz calling it nonsense. the mayor increasingly outspoken. his critics say increasingly unhinged. what do you say? >> i think this is something that republicans don't want to have to defend. it is one thing to be critical of the president and another thing to go after him personally and suggest that he doesn't love america and isn't patriotic and go after his motivations. i think this is something that probably a lot of republicans just wish rudy giuliani would stop saying. >> do republicans need to come forward and either agree with him or denounce him? >> i think they just need to
talk about the problems with barack obama's policies and there is plenty enough to say. >> i think the white house doesn't mind this conversation because it allows them to sort of paint the opposition as being so extreme that they look more reasonable in their view. it can't be good to have the president's patriotism in question. they would rather get back to policy. >> you heard them say it is not helpful that president's patriotism. >> certain questions that if you are going to answer them yes. the president [ inaudible ] and then go on to something else. >> let's go on to some potential candidates for 2016. jeb bush, big moment on the invisible primary gave big foreign policy speech in chicago and kind of stumbled right out of the box. >> we definitely no longer
inspire fear in our enemies. the problem is perhaps best demonstrated by this administration's approach to iraq. we have had 35 years of experience with iran -- excuse me iran. >> a little problem with naming countries. the architect of interrogation policy loved the speech. others thought it was puzzling. >> everyone feels you have to do the big foreign policy speech if you are running for president. he largely hit all the right marks for the moment about what conservatives believe is a problem with the president's foreign policy. he didn't necessarily get into what his own ideas would be. maybe that is understandable. he is going to have to think about this because given his association with the former president isn't going to be one of the biggest topics that greets jeb bush if he goes out there. there will be a lot more thought put into this going forward. >> did he help himself? >> i don't think he hurt
himself. it is cosmetic of delivering the speech could have been better. >> the question really is particularly now that he has associated himself sooner or later has to answer the following question. if we know what we know now about absence and problems of occupation and difficulty of transplanting democracy would you have invaded iraq? >> i think his speech touches on the fundamental debate the republicans are having about where they stand on issues of foreign policy and national security. more and more you see it returning to a more hawkish set of conversation than it had been more withdrawn. some people said isolationist and with the rise of isis it is changing the conversation. >> his big theme of the speech was i'm not my brother, not my
dad. can he so easily separate himself? >> his father and brother are not that much alike when it comes to foreign policy. that is sort of a strange thing to say. i personally prefer that he was more like his father than like his brother. i also think almost more important than the speech is the people he is hired to work on foreign policy. to have whatever people think of him he really is the face of the iraq war in a lot of ways. i think for him to choose people like that i think will be something that comes back. >> and a lot of other more -- >> there is an opportunity here too, in that the conflict that george w. bush was in in iraq and afghanistan is different from the security situation. he can embrace that and craft his own strategy. >> let's move on to the democratic side because hillary clinton was in the news when
revealed they collected some $2 billion in donations and a large portion of that has come from foreign governments and foreign entities. >> politically this is taelsh catastrophic move for hillary clinton. evidence of a big blind spot if she thinks she can continue to get away with it. >> do you think this is a big problem for her in the fact that these stories about what these people buy? >> the question is will it be. the richer the clinton's get the more they resemble the low rent people. one of the great things all along was i think inability to be embarrassed. and the operation of the clinton foundation with all of this as we say appearance of perhaps
quid pro quo corruption demonstrates that strength. i don't think they care. >> what about this idea that the ten year that juan williams is talking to donations that look sleazy and stupid? this happened with the coffees, the chinese and -- >> a lot of the contributions they are accepting have been banned by voluntary agreement during her tenure because they recognized it would be a conflict by president obama. as soon as he left they began taking foreign contributions again. it feeds into a larger concern that this is a moneyed democratic operation rather than a populist. >> the foundation gave me the statement should secretary clinton decide to run we will
continue to maintain policies are appropriate as she did when she served as secretary of state. does that fix it? >> i think if they go down this road if they talk about stopping accepting the money they got to talk about what they give back. and the foundation just doesn't want to do that. you don't solve the problem unless you give the money back. >> do they have to give this money back? >> i think it is going to be a problem with them actually with the left as much as anybody else. i think there is so much concern that she is so cozy with wealthy donors and with businesses and corporations this is really going to feed into that story line. >> a lot to chew over in the next 22 months i guess. thanks so much panel. coming up next the final word.
. discover the champion in you! . . (applause) well, god bless you. it's always a joy to come into your homes. if you're ever in our area please stop by and be a part of one of our services. i promise you we'll make you feel right at home. but thanks so much for tuning in today and thank you again for coming out. i like to start with something funny. i heard about this little girl. she was sitting in her grandfather's lap. she noticed how wrinkled his face was. as she contemplated the difference between his and hers she asked, "granddaddy, did god make you?" he kind of laughed and said, "yes, honey. he made me a long time ago." she then asked, "did god make me?" he said, "yes, he made you just a little whi